Saturday, May 31, 2008

The Rules

Obama supporters keep insisting that Hillary wants to break the rules so she can stealthily win the Democratic presidential nomination that by everything that's just and holy rightfully belongs to The Chosen One. To seat Florida and Michigan, two crucial swing states is beyond the pale because they broke the sacred rules.

Well, as in almost every legal case, each side has a valid point; that's why cases end up in court. Of course, if Obama had allowed a do-over in both Florida and Michigan a few months ago as Hillary wanted, we wouldn't be here, would we...?

Here's Jeralyn of Talk Left with a useful breakdown of the rules and what the media and Obama bloggers are not telling their audience:

Tomorrow, there will be extended coverage in the Media of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee hearing on Michigan and Florida. And not one of them will know what they are talking about (NOTE: It is not just the Media, it is also bloggers like Matt Yglesias who continues his competition with Josh Marshall to become the next David Broder.) They will not know that New Hampshire spurred this crisis by not accepting the DNC primary schedule. They will not know that Rule 11 (the DNC primary schedule rule) was violated by Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. They will not know that Florida was entitled to a "waiver" pursuant to Rule 21 of the DNC rules. They will not know that the DNC Rules did not require candidates to take their names off the MI and FL ballots, that in fact that was an Obama ploy to pander to Iowa and limit Michigan's influence. They will not know that the DNC Rules called for a 50% penalty, not a 100% penalty for violating Rule 11. They will not know that Florida and Michigan wanted to have revotes but were stymied by the Obama camp. Tomorrow, there will be extended coverage in the Media of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee hearing on Michigan and Florida. And not one of them will know what they are talking about (NOTE: It is not just the Media, it is also bloggers like Matt Yglesias who continues his competition with Josh Marshall to become the next David Broder.) They will not know that New Hampshire spurred this crisis by not accepting the DNC primary schedule. They will not know that Rule 11 (the DNC primary schedule rule) was violated by Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. They will not know that Florida was entitled to a "waiver" pursuant to Rule 21 of the DNC rules. They will not know that the DNC Rules did not require candidates to take their names off the MI and FL ballots, that in fact that was an Obama ploy to pander to Iowa and limit Michigan's influence. They will not know that the DNC Rules called for a 50% penalty, not a 100% penalty for violating Rule 11. They will not know that Florida and Michigan wanted to have revotes but were stymied by the Obama camp.

The long and short of it: New Hampshire broke the rules first. Iowa and South Carolina followed suit. Obama, losing badly to Hillary in Michigan, strategically took his name off the ballot -- even though he ran ads asking supporters to vote "uncommitted" and the rest is history.

None of this would matter in the slightest if Hillary Clinton had won in the completed primaries and caucuses. Democrats are not going to let her cheat her way to the nomination. You should be ashamed of your efforts to support her cheating.

Yes, Obama is the Chosen One. Chosen by the VOTERS. It's called democracy. Look it up. It's in the rules.

Hillary Clinton DID NOT want a do over. In fact, she fought against it. She knew that Obama would likely do better in Michigan and Florida the second time around.

If you remember correctly, Hillary Clinton has always argued in favor of counting the delegates as they currently are. Which I think is ONLY possible in Florida's case. Still, there needs to be some kinds of punishment. We have to keep control of our own primary, and the only way to enforce our rules is to punish those who break 'em.

"Democrats" like you are the reason why the party has been unable to win many heartland and western states. Instead of speaking to them, engaging them, and trying to win over their votes, you regard an entire state as unwinnable. Obama won Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Alaska, and North Dakota, which all had caucuses--and polling shows he will be competitive in these places in the fall. By your logic, Hillary Clinton won't win Nevada, which had a caucus--because its unwinnable, even though both candidates are competitive in the state. Democrats have lost so many presidential elections based on pipe dreams of Ohio and Florida--the party really should aim higher and try to win those states AND new states. That's how you put together a coalition to get things done in the country. Also, winning a party primary never guaranteed that a candidate would win that state in a general election.

You scream on here about rampant "sexism" against Hillary, but you call someone else divisive for bringing up race. Do you realize that logic makes little sense at all?

The reason why our country is going down the tubes is because of comments like "Caucus voters cheated". You have disrespected the millions of people who went to these caucuses to support their candidates--and they deserve to have their votes counted just like a primary state that followed the rules. Your arrogance towards anyone who doesn't support Hillary Clinton is pretty galling. Its the "my way or the highway" mentality that is ruining the party, not every Obama supporter.

The reason our country is going down the tubes is because we have filthy Republicans at the helm. The reason why the Democratic Party is going down the tubes is because we insist on nominating Presidential candidates that can't win the general election. If Barack Obama can't attract half the Democratic Party, how's he going to win the rest of the electorate? The same goes for Hillary. We don't have anyone running that the country wants, and no amount of pipe dreaming is going to make that so.

Howling Latina--You are right, Clinton won in both 1992 and 1996. However, in 1992 he won with 43%. He won only pluralities in many states like Kentucky, Ohio, and Montana that year. Barack is already polling at 40% or above in many key states, just like Hillary. In 1996, Clinton earned 49%--better--but he still was able to squeak by in some states with less than 50% of the vote.

Barack Obama came from literally nowhere against an "inevitable" Hillary Clinton candidacy and while she polled at or above 50% for much of 2007, he was organizing and gaining supporters. The fact that every Democrat knows who the Clintons are--and still--Obama has been able to compete against her--shows that he is not a "fringe" candidate. Why are most of the people who know Hillary Clinton the best NOT SUPPORTING her presidential campaign?

John Frum--This is a contested primary, and Democratic presidential nominees have won before with large majorities in the primaries only to be crushed in the fall. McCain was only winning a plurality of Republicans in the early primaries, and even then, he was losing much of the Conservative GOP vote. Is his party calling him unelectable? No. They want to win, but the Democrats are so caught up in identity politics that they just might blow it.